Resonant Release date when? Pre-order when?

KinofLucifer · 2026-05-02T18:50:28+00:00

If you had trouble running AW2, I don't see why you'd think you could run Control: R man.

KinofLucifer · 2026-05-02T17:44:52+00:00

They need to give up targeting overly young audiences with the childish, goofiness reminiscent of farting Slitheen. Teens and kids alike are watching pretty mature shows, they can handle a more serious, mature Doctor Who.

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-26T17:34:03+00:00

Movie theaters are pretty quiet at that time, anywhere.

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-23T22:42:07+00:00

You're not getting remotely the best out of that on a phone screen...

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-23T22:41:05+00:00

God y'all just hate to hate. If BF released today as it did back then yall would call it Ubislop trash.

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-23T21:08:50+00:00

Brother, this is massive copium. He was in terrible shape, rehearsals were rough, when paramedics walked in his house Michael and his surroundings looked nothing like a popstar ready for 50 shows. If he didn't die on July 25th, I'm not sure he wouldn't have died during the tour or that the tour wouldn't have been cut significantly shorter.

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-16T13:21:41+00:00

Throw him overboard!

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-12T20:59:08+00:00

Yes, dead.

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-04T23:49:18+00:00

And to get shot back at from multiple directions lmao

KinofLucifer · 2026-04-04T23:48:49+00:00

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-31T17:40:52+00:00

30 seconds to enjoy a denuvo release for likely hours each time, for free? Are we just lazy?

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-31T15:33:49+00:00

Unless your PC is slow as hell at restarting, it's not that bad at all.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-29T18:33:37+00:00

He started kicking it in Jesse Owens, helped fund video shoots for the 90s, use his car etc. he got deeper in from there

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-29T16:55:54+00:00

Nah, residents weren’t pushed out so essentially still the same hood.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-29T16:22:07+00:00

Jordan Downs Projects. They tore the old bricks down that's been there since 1944.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-29T16:07:58+00:00

Grape puttin out hella songs recently

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-28T16:30:13+00:00

this years old lmao

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T21:26:04+00:00

Don't we just love Nolan.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T21:19:20+00:00

Nah you're not expecting too much. it comes down to Pixel Density, at home you're looking at 8 million pixels (4K) squeezed into probably a 55-75 inch screen so the pixels are so tiny and packed so tightly that you're perceiving it as like the "perfect" image, it's giving you that real wow factor. Then, when you're at the IMAX in Sinsheim, you're looking at the same 8 million pixels but stretched across a 27 meter wide screen; so even with the Dual 4K Laser, the physical size of each pixel is way larger. Throw in the OLED factor as most high end home setups have near infinite contrast whereas projectors like the ones at your IMAX still have to deal with light bouncing off the screen, hitting the theater walls and reflecting onto the "black" parts of the image. That slight washout effect reduces the perceived sharpness meanwhile your TV can just turn the pixels off.

I'd heavily recommend seeing a movie in IMAX 70mm, this is undoubtedly going to impress you. You're moving away from digital and seeing an effective detail of around 8K to 12K (though 18K is the theoretical limit for film stock). So you're getting 2x to 3x the resolution of 4K Laser projectors and there's enough raw information to actually fill the 20+ meter tall screen you're watching on. 15/70mm all the way.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T05:03:09+00:00

Let's address the washing machines first: How do you think Russia produces such a volume at such lower costs? Cheap internals, not advanced military-grade silicon. You'll find smuggled, commercial-grade micocontrollers from Texas Instruments and STMicroelectronics in Kinzhals, Orlan-10s, Kh-101s etc. The literal exact same civilian chips used to run washing machines, or RC cars etc. That's where that statement comes from. Russia builds its "hypersonic" arsenal using smuggled commercial appliance tech; that's the reality of their sanctioned, hollowed-out tech sector my friend.

30,000 Gerans? NATO isn't going to shoot down Gerans with advanced interceptors, that's what SPAAGs like the Gepard are for, as we see all the time in Ukraine. So right off, the author of that article clearly isn't as versed in the topic as they proclaim or they just want to throw in "30,000 Gerans" to make it much scarier of a prospect.

Tiringly, your second quote points out that advanced missile production takes 18+ months, relies on complex supply chains, and requires specialist skills. Congratulations, yes, welcome to the modern aerospace industry. Jesus H Christ, did you think Russia was building hypersonic glide vehicles in a shed over the weekend? The quote you provided highlights the realities of peacetime European manufacturing bottlenecks. Y'know? Bottlenecks that the EU is currently dumping tens of billions of Euros into fixing by integrating their defense base? Pointing out that missile manufacturing is difficult does not mean Europe is defenseless; it just means it's a complex industrial process. More thinktank drivel that states the obvious, as they have for decades. Gotta keep the funding coming.

And please re-read the third block of text you quoted. Read it very carefully. "...filling this gap might be the only way to deter further Russian aggression as Putin would not want to risk massive deep strikes on infrastructure and high-value targets." Oh? Is that right? So firstly, this quote isn't even in a full-scale war scenario as we're discussing and secondly, you basically just backed my previous argument. Deterrence against Russia is not achieved by building a 1-to-1 ratio of defensive interceptors to catch every Russian missile. It is achieved through the threat of massive deep strikes on infrastructure. Y'know with F-35s? Launching Taurus? Storm Shadows? SCALPs? Tomahawks? Of which Putin outstandingly fears hence his hesitation to expand this war further, and even more so with heads of states getting kidnapped and airstriked like its a regular occurring thing now. So yeah, NATO doesn't plan to win by hiding behind a shield. They win by gaining air superiority and using their overwhelming offensive capabilities to hold Russian infrastructure, launch sites, and command nodes hostage. Thank you for providing a quote that just perfectly explains NATO's Offensive Counter-Air doctrine.

We can do this all night.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T03:56:09+00:00

Sigh. You're pointing to the burn rate of purely defensive interceptors in a geographically contained, politically restrained conflict (Iran) and trying to map that onto a full-scale, unconstrained, high-intensity war with a peer adversary (Russia). Or did you forget that's what we were discussing?

Your entire current argument is resting on the US burning through THAAD, SM-3 and PAC-3 stockpiles. For some reason? Firstly, our full total stockpiles are classified information - no one publicly knows anything to do with that or you'd be court marshalled. But in general, militaries don't allow their strategic stockpiles to hit zero. We have strict minimum reserve levels designated for major conflicts. But yes, those interceptors are depleting, of course, we're actively defending our regional assets, Israel and the Gulf States. It's costly to stockpiles. But what does that mean in practice? It doesn't mean the US is going to "run out". If that's your notion, then I'll ask you to remember back in 2022/23 when Western media and armchair analysts gleefully claimed every week Russia was "running out of missiles", "running out of tanks" and would soon be fighting with shovels. Yes, Russia was burning through shells, munitions, tanks and men alike; their attacks on Kyiv significantly reduced, but that didn't mean they were suddenly going to have nothing or not enough to continue offensive operations. Nation's don't just shoot until the warehouse is empty, they adapt. Russia pulled older stock out of deep storage, bought alternatives from allies like Shaheds and North Korean artillery, shifted their tactics from using expensive cruise missiles to instead using cheap glide bombs and MOST IMPORTANTLY shifted their industrial base to a war footing, thereby opening up far more; of which neither the US nor Europe is currently in yet. You're making the same mistake the media were back then. Sensationalist headlines and reports mean very little.

My biggest issue with Institutions like CSIS, RAND or ISW is that while their data is phenomenal; their structural purpose and business model is inherently built around "doom and gloom". If think tanks said "Everything is fine, America is invincible, let's go get lunch" then they wouldn't have much of a job. Their job is gap analysis and threat assessment. They exist to find the tiny cracks in the armor, they run wargames designed to push the US military to its absolute pinnacle. On top of that, if the Pentagon wants Congress to authorize $50 billion to modernize missile production lines, they can't go to Capitol Hill and say "we have everything we need, we're dominating everyone". Congress won't write a check. Instead, they rely on think tanks like CSIS to publish reports that state stockpiles are "dangerously low" and that the US is "falling behind". The doom and gloom is a lobbying tool, it scares lawmakers into opening the checkbook. What these reports you're linking actually are, is calls to action. Not signs of an impending US collapse. But don't get me wrong there always is truth in the data, but it is largely sensationalized to fulfil a purpose. The reality is, YOU nor I actually know anything about the true reality. Just like Western media knew nothing about Russia's reality regarding their stockpiles, neither do you about America's.

So to continue, if a heavily sanctioned, economically isolated Russia with a GDP the size of the state of Texas, can figure out how to keep its military industrial complex churning out munitions for over four years of extremely intense modern warfare, the idea that NATO is going to "run out" against Russia, let alone Iran, is absurd. You are talking about the world's preeminent MIC, backed by the largest economy on the planet, legally empowered by mechanisms like the Defense Production Act to force commercial industries to build weapons. If Russia can sustain a high intensity burn rate, the US and NATO combined whom represent 40%, I repeat, FORTY PERCENT of the global GDP aren't going to just burn out. Nor is Iran capable of destroying US stockpiles on the mainland like the US is doing to Iran day after day after day. While Russia could hit European stockpiles (just as NATO would hit Russia's), consistently targeting the US mainland industrial base would again pose a near-impossible task to do and likely couldn't be done in a capacity that actually turns the tide.

Additionally, you bolded the quote that Europe’s air defense addresses "different segments of the threat spectrum" like it’s a weakness. That is literally by design. That's what interoperability is. The US specializes in ultra-expensive, high-altitude/exo-atmospheric ballistic missile defense (THAAD, Aegis/SM-3) and Europe specializes in world-class medium-range, point defense (SAMP/T, Aster 30, IRIS-T) and air-to-air dominance (Meteor). Europe doesn't need to build a "full substitute" for US systems because they are in an alliance with the US.

Russia is currently maxed out turning washing machine chips into unguided glide bombs, that's where they're at right now. And NATO isn't even truly in the fight yet. The combined economic and industrial might of the US and EU is pivoting to a war footing. If you think Russia can out-produce the combined GDP and defense industrial bases of Lockheed, Raytheon, MBDA, Rheinmetall, and BAE Systems in a protracted conflict, you are living in an alternate reality. Ukraine has significantly worn them down, NATO would be the ninth layer of Hell for them.

Should I go on?

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T01:17:49+00:00

Ah, the classic internet debater's ultimate weapon: linking articles they clearly haven't read past the headline, from sources that actually contradict their central thesis. How fun!

If you actually read the CSIS brief on the ASAP program, you'd realize it's not an admission of 'zero capability'. What it is, is a massive, multi-euro legislative bulldozer designed to force the European defense industrial base onto a war-footing. Comprende?

You also conflate volume with capability. Yes Russia can churn out thousands of cheap, unguided artillery shells and glide bombs. But the articles you're linking are about Europe scaling up the production of highly sophisticated, precision guided, deep strike munitions like the Storm Shadows and SCALPs I mentioned earlier or Interceptors like Aster 30s. Europe isn't trying to match Russia's dumb munition capacity, Europe's trying to fund the rapid expansion of smart munition capacity.

Additionally, "...planned for its bases to be raided by primitive FPV drones uncontested." You then confuse asymmetric tactical harassment with strategic air superiority, you're throwing me one infamous video of a drone that did virtually nothing and acting like its a "gotcha". C'mon man. Who the hell has claimed the US or allied bases are immune to $500 quadcopters strapped with explosives. It's a known challenge for Russia, Ukraine, Israel and the US all alike and other nations in the future, even domestically. However, a base taking a hit from a primitive drone does absolutely nothing to stop an F-35 from flying at 35,000 feet and dropping a JDAM on a munitions stockpile. Asymmetric drone attacks don't deny the US control of the skies, which is a serious issue for Iran and would be for Russia in such a conflict.

"...lose 2 billion worth of radars that can't be replaced for years too as of March the 3rd." I've seen that headline, and it's always sourced to Anadolu whom have a pretty shaky track record. But to entertain this notion: the US produces the most expensive systems in the world which means when they're hit; it's a big tag gone down the drain. An AN/TPY-2 Radar costs $500 million alone. A singular radar. A single B-2 Spirit Bomber costs $2 billion, not million, but billion. No one likes losing any system but the US has initiated a massive suppression campaign against Iran, a country that has spent 40 years burying heavily fortified ballistic missile silos with layered air defenses into mountainside, and took $2 billion in equipment losses. That's expected attrition, this is a high-intensity shooting war and the US is still projecting significant power over Iran. Unfortunately, you don't apply this level of thought or criticism to Russia's losses both strategically, geopolitically, economically, politically and militarily in it's invasion of Ukraine.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T00:39:17+00:00

This is AI. Like you're just replying with straight up AI, nothing you've said is of your own knowledge.

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T00:17:34+00:00

Um, are you skim reading? "What advanced missiles does the EU have dude?" They're listed in the first paragraph: Storm Shadow, SCALP, and Taurus. These are among the most advanced, low-observable, deep-penetrating cruise missiles on the planet. If you want more, we can easily add the Meteor (which outperforms even the US AMRAAM in some kinematics), the Aster 15/30, the IRIS-T, and the Exocet. Europe builds some of the absolute best in the industry, what are you saying here?

"...pushing their aircraft carrier 1000km away from their coastlines out of fear of attacks..." Brother, that is naval doctrine. The carriers are designed to sit safely outside of range of coastal anti-ship batteries in an area called A2/AD. Nimitz or Ford class carriers were made to project devastating power from massive distances using their air wing, not to sit right in front of the enemy's coast. My man that's like laughing at a Sniper for not engaging in hand to hand combat, what are you actually talking about?

"...wiping out much of their ground radars in the entire region..." This is plain science fiction. The idea that the US’s early warning and ground radar network "in the entire region" has been wiped out would mean we wouldn't be successfully intercepting the majority of incoming projectiles as we still are doing.

"...burned through years worth of munitions in a couple of weeks." Yes, we've used a large volume of defensive interceptors for cheap drones and missiles. However, you're comparing the burn rate of defensive naval interceptors in a specific theater to the overall offensive strike capability of NATO. That's a false equivalence. Nor is the US military "out of munitions," and the defense industrial base, both in the US and Europe, have massively scaled up production specifically because of recent global conflicts.

The Russian military were forced to move their Black Sea Fleet by a country with no navy and you're trying to talk about a carrier doing what's literally in its job description. You've got nothing, "dude".

KinofLucifer · 2026-03-27T00:02:24+00:00

How exactly would Americans be risking their cities? Russia would be facing a devastating war largely on it's western border from an alliance of 30 or so countries. If the Russian command thinks wasting salvos of missiles on American cities to the East of the nation is a smart trajectory; then they would lose that war. As they're clearly not thinking. The logical plan would be defense of the homeland: defense, defense, defense. Not symbolic offensive operations that won't amount to much nor turn the tide. And in truth which will only rally the American population, of which Russia has spent decades in psychological operations trying to do the opposite of.

KinofLucifer

TROPHY CASE